Cited by 33Health Services Management and PolicyHealth Policy Implementation ScienceGenomics and Rare Diseases

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Delivering genomic medicine in the United Kingdom National Health Service: a systematic review and narrative synthesis

Open access

Abstract

Purpose We sought to assess the readiness of the United Kingdom (UK) National Health Service to implement a Genomic Medicine Service. We conducted a systematic literature review to identify what is known about factors related to the implementation of genomic medicine in routine health care and to draw out the implications for the UK and other settings. Methods Relevant studies were identified in Web of Science and PubMed from their date of inception to April 2018. The review included primary research studies using quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods, and systematic reviews. A narrative synthesis was conducted. Results Fifty-five studies met our inclusion criteria. The majority of studies reviewed were conducted in the United States. We identified four domains: (1) systems, (2) training and workforce needs, (3) professional attitudes and values, and (4) the role of patients and the public. Conclusion Mainstreaming genomic medicine into routine clinical practice requires actions at each level of the health-care system. Our synthesis emphasized the organizational, social, and cultural implications of reforming practice, highlighting that demonstration of clinical utility and cost-effectiveness, attending to the compatibility of genomic medicine with clinical principles, and involving and engaging patients are key to successful implementation.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41436-019-0579-x

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 4 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Carroll, 2016, Primary care providers’ experiences with and perceptions of personalized genomic medicine, Can Fam Phys, 62, E626

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 33

Metadata

Authors
Pearce, C., Goettke, E., Hallowell, N., McCormack, P., Flinter, F., & McKevitt, C.
Affiliations
  • King's College London (GB)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • Newcastle University (GB)
  • Guy's Hospital (GB)
Corresponding author
McKevitt, Christopher
Venue
Genetics in Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-12
Volume
21
Issue
12
Pages
2667-2675
ISSN
1098-3600 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2951272058
Cited by
33
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 1
FWCI
0.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Update notices
erratum (2019-12-01)
Open access
Locations
  • Genetics in Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (CLAHRC-2013-10022)
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (CLAHRC-2013-10022, NIHR CLAHRC‐2013‐10022)
  • King's College London
  • NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care South London (NIHR CLAHRC-2013-10022)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Services Management and Policy
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genomics and Rare Diseases
Keywords
genomic medicine, National Health Service, health care system, employee training, professional attitudes, patient and public engagement, clinical utility, cost-effectiveness, routine clinical practice, health care reform
MeSH terms
Cost-Benefit Analysis, Delivery of Health Care, United Kingdom, Humans, State Medicine, Genomics, Precision Medicine

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review